Intensity and Biodiversity: The ‘Green’ Potential of Agriculture and Rural Territories in Poland in the Context of Sustainable Development

Abstract

In the paper we provide an analysis of the potential of agricultural holdings for biomass production, an assessment of the level of farm sustainability and a description of the farming conditions of agricultural holdings depending on the degree of natural valuation of a given area. The approach makes it possible to assess the level of sustainability of farms, also in the context of their potential and taking into account the quality of the production space and its importance for increasing biodiversity. We use public and unpublished data of Statistics Poland (2005, 2007, 2016) as well as data on farms keeping accounts for the Polish FADN in 2016–2018. The paper shows that although concentration processes are progressing, farm productivity is increasing, but this is linked to specialisation, leading to efficient management of labour and land resources. Nevertheless, the decreasing number of farms with proper winter vegetation cover and optimal balances was confirmed. The farming conditions of the farms should take into account the share and degree of natural value of the production space of the areas (municipalities) in which they are located. The study found that farms in municipalities with a high share of high natural value farmland (HNVf) areas, compared to the other municipalities, characterized by lower livestock density per ha UAA, which indicates their less intensive organisation of agricultural production. Moreover, in these municipalities, as their natural value increased, the share of forests and waters in the total area increased and the share of permanent grassland in the total area decreased slightly.

1. Introduction

The implementation of the sustainable development principles is particularly important in agriculture, which has a strong impact on the natural environment [1,2]. The specificity of agriculture are side effects of conducted agricultural activities, which are both positive and negative externalities [3,4]. In the second case, the consequence of agricultural practices is constituted by the irreversible degradation of valuable natural resources, including the ones in the form of reduction or loss of soil productive potential [5]. With regard to these issues, the sustainability of agriculture and agricultural holdings is linked to production potential, which is determined by its various elements, such as the area of the farm, the quality of the soil (also linked to the possibility of applying a crop rotation process), the stocking density (linked to soil fertility planning), but also affects farm labour input (planning on sustainable farms is more labour-intensive than on conventional farms, as a result of the substitution of chemical inputs) [6]. The organisation of production on a farm is a resultant of its production potential and determines the production profile and its specialisation (what we define as the farming type). The recognition of the production potential elements, as well as the key features of production organization is the basis of the establishment of agriculture pro-environmental development [7,8].

Fragmented agrarian structure in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe, so far perceived as a feature of developmental backwardness (including Poland), constitute a potential which can be used to move away from intensive and high-input food economy, to increase positive relations between agriculture, biomass production for other, growing sectors of bioeconomy, but first of all to limit an adverse impact of agriculture on biodiversity [9,10,11,12]. To this end, the EU is carrying out strategic planning which should result in biodiversity measures being firmly embedded in the public policy instruments of EU countries [13].

Low farming intensity favours the sustainable development of agricultural holdings not only in terms of their production (such as crop and livestock diversification) but, first of all, in terms of their impact on the natural environment, landscape and biodiversity of the areas surrounding a farm, i.e., the diversity of land cover, including the presence of, inter alia, water courses and reservoirs, wetlands, uncultivated land, as well as hedgerows and forests which constitute ecological corridors and living space for wild animals. In each country, national natural and economic conditions in rural areas should guide the designation of areas which are important as environmental public goods.

A specific feature of agriculture are the externalities of agricultural activity, having the character of positive as well as negative environmental effects [14]. The external effects of agricultural activity are generally not taken into account in the microeconomic criterion of decision-making by agricultural producers, which justifies the need for intervention of the institutional factor. The basis of sustainable development is the necessity to form a new rationality—ecological rationality, which recognizes a priori that such an individual activity cannot be accepted, which, although maximizing profit, at the same time causes the loss of important resources (public goods) or generates external costs, thus reducing the welfare of the whole society [15]. In line with this thought, each individual should have a sense of duty to actively contribute to environmental protection, observe the principles of rational management of natural resources, and implement a system of management that takes into account the capacity and absorptive capacity of the ecosystem [16].

Through appropriate policy instruments, the state has the ability to impose boundary conditions on operators, aiming at bringing the private optimum (oriented towards microeconomic rationality) to the social optimum (related to macroeconomic rationality). These opportunities are introduced within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, where the conditional financing of agriculture has highlighted the decisive role of farms in shaping the state of the natural environment. A comprehensive approach, including both market goods and public goods, has highlighted the importance of multifunctional agricultural development [7]. The need to monitor agri-environmental practices, thus searching for interpretable measures and methods allowing for a synthetic assessment of sustainability of a farm, including its internal organisation and relations with the environment [17]. Although the notion of a sustainable farm is not uniformly understood, most definitions assume that in a sustainable farm the applied agricultural practices do not disturb the environmental balance, and the effect of the conducted activities are economic and social benefits [18].

In the European Union (EU), the process of decline in biodiversity of many areas related to agriculture continues (COM (2015) 478 final [19]). It should be stressed, however, that not only the agricultural production intensification processes, but also the abandonment of agricultural activity, especially on less useful soils and located in less favourable conditions, leads to the reduction of biodiversity in the agricultural landscape (Henle et al., 2008) [20]. Therefore, in order to protect and enrich biodiversity in the landscape, the role of extensive agricultural holdings in the vicinity of valuable components of the natural environment is of particular importance [21,22]. In this context, high-nature-value farmland (HNVf) areas, which are of particular importance for efforts to halt the loss of biodiversity in the EU [23], acquire priority importance. HNVf areas are areas where extensive farming is linked to high biodiversity and landscape conservation [24,25]. It is important to add that, currently, the HNVf indicator—expressed as the share of high nature value farmland in the total area—is one of the 32 agri-environmental indicators used by EUROSTAT to monitor the environmental impact of agriculture and one of the 45 context indicators to monitor the effects of measures under the CAP [26,27,28,29]. Moreover, this indicator is considered as an important source of information on practical actions taken to protect biodiversity and provide valuable connections in the landscape for the movement of animal species [30].

In the paper we provide an analysis of the potential of agricultural holdings for biomass production, an assessment of the level of farm sustainability and a description of the farming conditions of agricultural holdings depending on the degree of natural valuation of a given area. All three elements make it possible to assess the level of sustainability of farms, also in the context of their potential and taking into account the quality of the production space and its importance for increasing biodiversity.

2. Materials and Methods

For the analysis of the farm sustainability level, data of Statistics Poland (2005, 2007) and 2016 Farm Structure Survey (FSS) data were used. FSS research are carried out in individual EU countries and results are finally aggregated in EUROSTAT databases. therefore, using a set of characteristics from this database makes it possible to replicate the approach in other countries covered by the FSS.

The selection of data sets in these specific years was dictated by the availability of detailed indicators, relevant to the subject of the study; indicators for the assessment of the sustainability level were selected on the basis of the analysis of the relevant literature. The analysis covered all individual agricultural holdings with at least 1 ha of agricultural land maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC). To show the place of Polish agriculture in comparison with other EU countries, we use basic indicators presented by EUROSTAT (2016).

The period covered by the analysis in this article was selected due to data availability. In the article we use unique data sets generated on request by the statistical office in Poland, based on the guidelines provided. They have been developed taking into account studies of this type described in the literature. These data are not widely available, therefore the proposed methodology and the choice of variables are to contribute to a better determination of the level of sustainability of agricultural holdings.

The paper uses characteristics of agriculture and agricultural holdings commonly accepted in the literature, concerning economic and production potential: labour input (expressed in Annual Labour Units—AWU, equivalent to a full-time job, i.e., 2120 h of work per year), agricultural area (ha), livestock population (LU), value of standard output (thousand euro) and standard gross margin (European Size Units—ESU). It should be stressed that 1 LU is a conventional unit of livestock of 500 kg. The presentation of livestock conversion factors from physical units to livestock conversion units can be found in the literature [31]. As far as the standard production is concerned, in the study it includes the production values of the average of 5 years reflecting the average situation in the region. When constructing the total standard farm production index, we take into account the values for each farming activity multiplied by the of the standard production coefficients for the farm activities and the number of hectares or the number of livestock [32]. It is an economic category that allows for comparing the volume of production, while offsetting the impact of price fluctuations in regional and temporal terms. There were used 2013 standard output indicators (based on the average values for the period 2011–2015). Finally, the sum of standard gross margins (SGM)—the difference between output and specific (direct) costs of all activities occurring on the farm—indicates the economic size of the farm, otherwise the productive potential of the farm. One ESU is equivalent to EUR 1200.

In this paper we analyse the standard gross margin as the average for a given region, while for a given crop or livestock we calculate the standard value of production obtained in the last 3 years from one hectare or one livestock, less standard production costs. We used the 2004 standard gross margin indices used in the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), according to the methodology of calculation used by this institution, appropriate for the research period adopted. In accordance with the specification used in EUROSTAT and agricultural accounting system FADN, we applied the general types of farming classification (GTF), based on agricultural standard output value [32]. According to this classification, agricultural types reflect the profile of agricultural production, including the orientation and specialisation of production.

For the purpose of farm characterisation, the article uses the following farm types: (I) specialized in field crops, (II) specialized in horticulture, (III) specialized in permanent crops, (IV) specialized in rearing grazing livestock, (V) specialized in rearing granivores, (VI) nonspecialized with mixed crops, (VII) nonspecialized with mixed livestock, (VIII) nonspecialized with mixed crops and livestock.

Analyses of sustainable development of agriculture at the micro level indicate basic requirements related to agricultural production which are oriented towards environmental protection. The basic one is to maintain the productive potential of soil as the basic factor of production, which includes appropriate crop rotation and fertilisation, adapted to local physical and environmental conditions. The aim of crop rotation is to ensure a positive balance of organic matter in the soil [33].

Maintaining a good soil balance is important to ensure adequate crop yield and supply of suitable micronutrients. Organic matter and its transformation into humus play a major role in creating and maintaining soil fertility. Therefore, particular emphasis is placed on the use of indicators for production diversity (crop and livestock), fertilisation rates and soil quality in sustainability analyses. These indicators in model-based analyses of environmental sustainability are stimulants, destimulants or nominants. Threshold values have been set as a benchmark for assessing the sustainability of farms. Based on a selection of studies [1,16,34,35], the following indicators were applied.

• Indicator of winter vegetation cover of arable land. This is a synthetic indicator of land resources assessment and natural resources protection, and it shows to what extent the sustainable production system has been implemented in agriculture and thus reflects the state of ecosystem balance. It is assumed that for this indicator the threshold value reflects the area of plant cover, which in a holding should be at least one third of the cultivated area.
• The share of cereals in the sowing structure. This measure is key in the crop rotation and influences the degree of biodiversity of the agrocenosis on the arable land. The share of cereals should not exceed two-thirds of the reference value of the area.
• Diversity and number of different types of crop groups. The number of crop groups cultivated on arable land is an indicator which complements the information contained in the above indicators and provides information on the possibilities for crop rotation management. It is a way of reducing pests, weed infestation and related losses. According to the guidelines for a correct crop rotation, three crops should be cultivated out of the following: cereals, root crops, leguminous and papilionaceous plants, and industrial crops, and it is also important to use grass sown on arable land.
• Soil organic matter balance on arable land. This reflects a proper crop rotation resulting in enrichment of the soil with humus. The reference value should be above zero [31].
• Stocking density on agricultural land. This measure provides information about the level of livestock intensity and also indicates the scale of the environmental impact of natural fertilizer. Stocking density should not exceed 2 LU/ha.
• NPK measure. The gross balance of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) in the soil is a consequence of production intensity and efficiency measured by the level of mineral fertilization, stocking density and crop yields. The optimal level of NPK balance is regionally diversified [36]. In the case of fertilization, 2007 and 2016 data were used. In 2005, the scope of FSS research did not take into account fertilization.

According to the literature, it has been assumed that the main feature of sustainable agriculture is the preservation of the productive potential of soil, which is the essential element of the natural environment used in agriculture [37]. Therefore, at least preventing the degradation of soil organic matter and ultimately increasing soil fertility and sustaining its capacity to produce biomass was considered to be the basis for the implementation of correct agricultural practices [1,34].

Agricultural production in compliance with respect for natural resources is enabled by skilful crop rotation and fertilisation, adapted to the abundance and type of soil [33]. The presented substantive issues were considered a priority in the selection of measures used to measure the level of sustainability of agricultural holdings environmental sustainability of agricultural holdings.

Adopted on the basis of the literature analysis, a specific set of environmental sustainability indicators with defined threshold values provides a basis for determining the share of farms meeting environmental criteria. The degree of sustainability of the agricultural sector can thus be determined by indicating the percentage of holdings meeting the sustainability criteria.

The designation of areas of high natural value and biodiversity in Poland follows the hitherto developed HNVf concept, which has been practised in Europe since the 1990s [14,38,39,40], taking into account national specificities of environmental and economic conditions found in rural areas. In the adopted methodology, environmental factors were assigned weights ranging from 3 to 10 points, which reflect the role and function of these components in preserving biodiversity in a given area [22]. Taking into account the adopted methodology, at the first stage a preliminary delineation of HNVf areas in Poland was made. For this purpose, three scenarios based on differentiation of the share of areas of high natural values were used. The value depicting this differentiation was determined by the average maximum weight in the following ranges: 3.0–10.0, 3.5–10.0 and 4.0–10.0 points [22]. In this approach, the areas with the lowest value are excluded from the HNVf areas. In this case, by taking a scenario with a weight of 3.5–10.0 points, we assume the exclusion of areas with an average maximum weight lower than 3.5 points. The application of this approach allowed us to obtain a uniform layer of agricultural land with an assigned value of average maximum weight at the national scale and then to link it to a layer of geodetic regions fulfilling the criteria of extensive agriculture. In a further step, agricultural land fulfilling both the criteria for extensive agriculture and the criteria for HNVf areas, defined according to the average maximum weight scenarios, were included in the HNVf areas, hereafter referred to as areas with weights of 3.0–10.0; 3.5–10.0 and 4.0–10.0. The paper consists of three parts, an analysis of the potential of agricultural holdings for biomass production, an assessment of the level of sustainability and a description of the farming conditions of agricultural holdings depending on the degree of natural valuation of a given area. All these elements allow for a better assessment of the sustainability conditions of agriculture in the context of the implementation of public policies initiated by the European Green Deal [41].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Biomas Production Potential and Environmental Sustainability of Poland’s Agriculture

Polish agriculture has a significant production potential contained in the resources of factors of production against the background of the EU agriculture (

Table 1. EU agricultural sector in 2016 (data concern the national sectors; in thousand units).

No.	Country	Farm Number	Labour Inputs (AWU)	Utilized Agricultural Area (Hectare)	Farms with Livestock (Number)	Standard Output (Euro)	Live Bovine Animals (Heads)	Live Swine (Heads)
1	Belgium	36.89	55.35	1354.25	25.44	8,037,986.42	2503.14	6178.98
2	Bulgaria	202.72	255.52	4468.50	134.97	3,842,891.03	626.24	638.41
3	Czechia	26.52	103.27	3453.04	18.68	:	1409.77	1542.21
4	Denmark	35.05	49.48	2614.60	20.67	10,062,442.04	1568.29	12,383.00
5	Germany	276.12	502.61	16,715.32	184.69	49,249,020.56	12,354.88	28,652.96
6	Estonia	16.70	19.88	995.10	6.96	801,547.06	258.11	279.87
7	Ireland	137.56	160.74	4883.65	126.59	6,324,900.70	7222.12	1603.90
8	Greece	684.95	457.15	4553.83	238.52	7,574,803.91	619.70	769.13
9	Spain	945.02	822.37	23,229.75	216.70	38,365,605.15	6090.59	23,946.46
10	France	456.52	708.17	27,814.16	247.57	61,343,138.67	19,024.06	13,599.22
11	Croatia	134.46	160.46	1562.98	91.47	2,034,939.13	418.44	944.88
12	Italy	1145.71	897.09	12,598.16	154.68	51,689,024.31	6114.51	8375.52
13	Cyprus	34.94	18.74	111.93	9.98	616,692.17	53.71	265.04
14	Latvia	69.93	76.86	1930.88	44.97	1,221,341.01	434.67	361.09
15	Lithuania	150.32	148.35	2924.60	95.30	2,226,207.56	739.99	627.31
16	Luxembourg	1.97	3.50	130.65	1.54	365,008.40	201.42	92.31
17	Hungary	430.00	394.41	4670.56	261.54	6,532,474.66	847.52	2978.84
18	Malta	9.31	5.34	11.18	2.74	98,016.86	14.72	41.64
19	Netherlands	55.68	147.20	1796.26	36.96	23,087,034.10	4251.46	12,478.59
20	Austria	132.50	101.73	2669.75	93.92	6,141,561.46	1932.66	2883.86
21	Poland	1410.70	1649.40	14,405.65	718.24	25,005,635.42	5951.33	10,982.81
22	Portugal	258.98	313.83	3641.69	172.35	5,144,206.85	1566.64	1875.11
23	Romania	3422.03	1640.12	12,502.54	2567.43	12,105,491.80	1849.28	4142.79
24	Slovenia	69.90	82.39	488.40	56.58	1,158,773.47	486.01	273.36
25	Slovakia	25.66	47.19	1889.82	16.12	1,931,433.53	452.46	483.98
26	Finland	49.71	81.63	2233.08	16.61	3,514,583.72	909.02	1234.86
27	Sweden	62.94	55.94	3012.64	34.29	5,158,678.85	1488.90	1354.29
28	United Kingdom	185.06	284.94	16,673.27	138.05	25,403,447.34	:	:

: Signifies a lack of data in database. Source—own calculation based on Eurostat data set for all farms in 2016, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/agriculture/data/database, accessed on 21 September 2021.

). Particular attention is paid to very high (the highest in the EU) labour resources in Poland expressed through labour inputs (AWU) and large resources of agricultural land. The productive resources of Polish agriculture are concentrated in a large number of farms (more farms in EU agriculture are found only in Romania). Taking into account the average farm area (the EU average is 16.55 ha/farm), the Poland is placed in the last six of EU countries, that correspond with small scale of standard output (Polish average farm is placed in the last seven of the EU countries). Despite the significant production potential of Polish agriculture, its share of the EU standard production is only 7%, while about half of this value in the EU is produced by four countries: France, Italy, Germany and Spain. In the majority of EU countries, livestock production in more popular (e.g., in Slovenia 81%, and in Ireland 92% of farms conduct this production) in comparison to Poland. Taking into account the number of animal heads, Poland’s position in the UE is significant in the scope of live bovine animal production. Of the total number of bovine animal heads, Poland has 7.5% of heads, which places the country on the fourth position in the EU. The leaders are France, Germany, Ireland and Spain, which account for almost 50% of bovine heads. As regards the swine sector, Poland’s size is comparable to its bovine animal sector. In this scope, of particular importance are Germany, Spain and Denmark, with 47% of total swine heads in the EU. Summing up, Poland’s agriculture has a high production potential taking into account the main factors of production, but the unit productivity and efficiency are below the EU average.

Agriculture in Poland changed significantly from 2005 to 2016 (

Table 2. Agricultural and economic potential of Polish sector—individual farms.

Specification	Farms Number (Thous.)	Agricultural Land (Thous. ha)	Labour Inputs (Thous. AWU)	Livestock Density (Thous. LU)	Farms with Livestock (Thous.)	Standard Output (Mln EUR)	Standard Gross Margin (Thous. ESU)
2005	1723.90	13,060.60	2035.20	6430.30	1247.60	20,824.10	9963.86
2016	1398.10	13,181.40	1617.00	5923.50	712.60	21,824.30	9283.38
difference in units	−325.80	120.80	−418.20	−506.80	−535.00	1000.20	−680.48
difference in %	−18.90	0.92	−20.55	−7.88	−42.88	4.80	−6.83
Farms’ Structure (%) According Farm’s Area and Standard Output
Specification	1–5 ha		5–25 ha		25–50 ha	50–100 ha	≥100 ha
2005	56.9		38.7		3.4	0.8	0.3
2016	53.7		39.4		4.6	1.6	0.7
difference in units	−3.2		0.7		1.3	0.8	0.4
Specification	<8 thous. €		8–25 thous. €		25–50 thous. €	50–100 thous. €	≥100 thous. €
2005	62.8		25.1		8.2	3.0	0.9
2016	65.1		21.0		7.7	4.1	2.1
difference in units	2.3		−4.2		−0.5	1.1	1.2

Source: Own calculation based on data 2005 and 2016 of Statistics Poland and [16].

). These changes concerned the number of farms, their potential and production profile, as well as production organization. A decrease can be observed in both the number of farms and the change in labour inputs. In both cases the reductions in 2016 amounted to more than one fifth of the value of the indicators compared to the base year of the analysis. In 2016, there were 1.4 million individual farms. Simultaneously, the area of agricultural land in good agricultural condition was around 13 million ha in analysis years. In absolute terms, the area increased by 121 thousand ha in the period, which was the result of the introduced commitments relating to the receipt of direct payments by maintaining land in good agricultural condition. The legal obligation to restore land use caused the environmental-oriented agricultural practices of their users. The changes in the total number of agricultural holdings were accompanied by modernisation processes (mainly with regard to the technologies used), which translated into significant changes in the volume of labour input in agriculture, which decreased by 1.62 million AWU in the period in question.

During the analysed period it is important to point out important changes in the scope of production carried out by farms. The number of holdings with livestock decreased by 43% and this was associated with an increase in the number of noncattle farms. This concerned holdings which in the previous years carried out production of this type as a secondary specialisation direction. This phenomenon is connected with outflow of labour force from agriculture and transformation of farms related to simplification of agricultural production. As a result, this has contributed to the total abandonment of animal production.

This had its negative impact on the environment, associated with a reduction in the use of natural fertilisers of animal origin in favour of an increased use of mineral and chemical fertilisers. The reduction in the amount of natural fertilisers has in turn resulted in a deterioration of the soil organic matter balance. From the level of agricultural holdings the possibilities of counteracting the negative effects of liquidation of animal production are limited, partly one may strive to increase the amount of structure-forming plants (having an impact on soil quality) or purchase fertilizers of animal origin from producers conducting large-scale animal production.

When analysing the economic potential of an agricultural holding, two main categories are indicated, standard production and standard gross margin. In the case of standard production, an increase of nearly 5% was recorded in the analysed period, while in the case of standard gross margin, a decrease of 7% was recorded.

Changes of both indicators explain the essential influence of direct costs on agricultural activity, in this case the increase of prices of agricultural production means should be emphasized, including mineral fertilizers, as well as fodder and additives for livestock or plant protection products. It should be emphasized that it is important from the point of view of consideration of premises for balancing agricultural production, as one of economic premises for limitation of use of means of production of industrial origin. It should also be pointed out that in the discussed period agricultural holdings continued to depend on them for their agricultural production, which was a consequence of the scale of the phenomenon of separation of plant and animal production in holdings.

In 2005–2016, there were significant changes in the area of agricultural land of farms. The share of farms with an area up to 5 ha decreased, while the share of farms with an area of 25 ha and more, especially those with an area of 50 ha, increased significantly. It indicates land concentration processes in medium and large farms, which gradually increase their production potential at the expense of small and very small farms (producing less than EUR 25 000), so with the lowest economic potential.

In the structure of agricultural holdings in Poland, there is a successive increase in the number of relatively large farms with a significant production and economic potential, but also investment opportunities associated with a possible conversion towards a more balanced production. It should be noted, however, that in comparison to other European countries, the average individual farm in Poland is relatively small, both in terms of the area of agricultural land and standard agricultural production. (

Table 3. Agricultural and economic potential of average Polish farm (per farm).

Specification	Agricultural Land (ha)	Labour Inputs (AWU)	Livestock Heads per Livestock Farm (LU)	Livestock Density on Average Farm (LU)	Livestock Density on Livestock Farms (LU)
2005	7.58	1.18	5.15	0.49	0.61
2016	9.43	1.16	8.31	0.45	0.77
difference in units	1.85	−0.02	3.16	−0.04	0.16
difference in %	24.44	−2.04	61.28	−8.16	26.23
Specification	Standard Output (Thous. EUR)	Standard Gross Margin (ESU)	Standard Output per Agricultural Land (Thous. EUR/ha)		Standard Gross Margin per Labour Inputs (ESU/AWU)
2005	12.08	5.78	1.59		4.90
2016	15.61	6.64	1.66		5.74
difference in units	3.53	0.86	0.07		0.84
difference in %	29.22	14.88	4.40		17.14

Source—own calculation based on data 2005 and 2016 of Statistics Poland and [16].

). In the analysed period, an average farm significantly increased its area by around 24%, which resulted in an improvement in their economic potential, almost by 30%. In farms with animal production its scale increased on average by 60% per farm with this type of production. On the other hand, the data indicate a growing population of noncattle farms, so the density of livestock production per total number of farms is decreasing. The data also confirm a weakening of the relationship between crop and animal production at farm level [16].

The data indicated an improvement in the economic efficiency of agricultural holdings in the analysed period, which was mainly associated with an increase in the productivity of the land factor as well as an improvement in the economic efficiency of labour. In the case of family farms, the discussed indicators inform about the investment and consumption potential of both households and agricultural farms. The average land productivity in 2016 was 1656 EUR/ha and in the analysed period it increased only by about 4%. In this context, an important role was played by the decline in livestock production, which relatively significantly affected the total value of agricultural production. On the other hand, the economic efficiency of labour increased in the analysed period by more than 17% and as a result in 2016 amounted to 5.74 ESU/AWU. The improvement in the result of the labour input ratio was related to the improvement of the standard gross margin, but mainly the result of a significant reduction in labour input, as a result of the simplification of agricultural production and a higher level of specialization. The structure of crops, next to natural fertilizers, determines a farm’s environmental sustainability. Based on the values of the coefficients of land reproduction and degradation, the largest negative impact comes from root crops, then vegetables and maize, and finally cereals and industrial plants. In contrast, crops that improve soil structure are classified as legumes and grasses, as well as their mixes. Winter vegetable cover crops, as well catch crops, are of particular importance in soil protection, e.g., against erosion. In 2016, crops adversely affecting soil condition occupied the dominant area of arable land (the predominance of cereals, industrial crops, and corn for fodder). Subsequently, approximately 9% of the area is allocated for crops improving soil fertility. This share is significantly smaller than recommended, since crops that improve soil condition should occupy 20% of sown area [34], while the root crops take up only 5%.

The changes that have taken place in the area and the sowing structure over the years 2005–2016 should be recognized as beneficial in terms of soil condition improvement. In this period, the share of area of cereals and root crops decreased, but there has been a significant increase in the area of maize for livestock feed, which belongs to those plants that degrade soil. (

Table 4. Crops * on arable land. Area (in thousands of hectares) and crop share (%).

Specification Concerning Area	Root Crops	Fodder Corn, Vegetable, Strawberry	Cereal and Industrial Crops	Soil-Improving Crops	Catch Crops	Winter Crops
2005	815.78	455.88	7841.33	548.10	297.76	4292.44
2016	460.09	775.33	7548.32	826.68	1139.55	4198.52
difference in units	−355.69	319.45	−293.02	278.58	841.79	−93.93
difference in %	−43.60	70.07	−3.74	50.83	282.71	−2.19
Specification concerning crop share	Root crops	Fodder corn, vegetable, strawberry	Cereal and industrial crops	Soil-improving crops	Catch crops	Winter crops
2005	8.44	4.71	81.08	5.67	3.08	44.38
2016	4.79	8.06	78.51	8.60	11.85	43.67
difference in units	−3.65	3.35	−2.58	2.93	8.77	−0.72

* Crops are grouped according to their impact on the content of soil impact. Source: Own calculation based on data 2005 and 2016 of Statistics Poland and [36].

). Despite the favourable direction of change and its dynamics, further progress in this area is necessary to create wider opportunities for the application of crop rotation. A significant proportion of cultivated main crops formed winter vegetation cover—winter species accounted for 44%, both in 2005 and 2016. An important element of the sown area are both spring and winter catch crops, which have a beneficial impact on organic matter content and soil state. In the studied period, catch crops area increased nearly four times, which deserves emphasis. Presented changes in the crop structure are moving towards greater protection of soil on the level of farms. An important cause of this process is governmental support of farmers that implement different pro-environmental agricultural practices and generally undertake more environmentally friendly farm organization. The period of 2005–2016 was involving with the implementation of the various governmental instruments that obliged or encouraged farmers to diversify crop structure, including agri-environment programs, direct subsidies to soil improving crops, and the greening mechanism [42].

A natural consequence of the changes in the number, cultivation and breeding techniques are also changes in the structure of the distribution of agricultural holdings in relation to individual agricultural types (Figure 1). Between 2005 and 2016, the share of farms specialising in crops increased significantly (from 46% to 64%) Farms of this type were the only ones that significantly increased in size. Nonspecialized farms with crops and livestock (VIII) were in the second place in farm structure and their percentage decreased by half in the research period. From the point of view of the environmental sustainability of holdings, these changes can be regarded as unfavourable. The link between plant and animal production on mixed farms is naturally more noticeable than on other farms. It should be noted that the adjustment of the structure of field crops to the fodder needs of the livestock, as well as the use of natural fertilisers in plant production, play an essential role here. These linkages reduce the farms’ dependence on external suppliers, both for the purchase of fodder and chemical fertilisers. From the point of view of environmental challenges, lower stocking rates on farms that do not specialise in livestock production reduce the risk of local water and soil pollution and make it easier to balance fertilisers compared to farms specialising in livestock production [17,43]. An important factor here is also farm practice for maintaining good soil potential, which involves the need for diversified cultivation, but also the substitution of industrial fertilisers for natural fertilisers [44]. There was a significant decrease in the number of farms not specialising in mixed animal production (VII). At the same time, in the analysed period there was no change in the comparable share of farms specialising in animal production, namely in cattle and rearing granivores (IV and V).

To summarise, in the last decade there has been a process of specialisation of agricultural holdings, as well as a significant increase in the number of specialised holdings (mainly in field crops), with a simultaneous fall in those with mixed production (animal and plant production). A significant number of nonspecialised farms abandoned animal production during this period, exclusively or mainly in favour of field crops.

3.2. Environmental Sustainability of Poland’s Agriculture and Farms

The organization of crop and livestock production results in the level and scope of farm environmental sustainability. The sustainability indicator values reflect the changes in sowing structure and the direction of trends in agricultural production (

Table 5. Agriculture environmental sustainability in Poland.

Average Value of Environmental Sustainability Criterion for the Sector
No.	Specification *	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	2007	51.00	75.43	x	0.12	0.49	43.78	5.73	8.24
2	2016	53.00	70.44	x	0.23	0.45	32.97	−0.38	−0.45
3	difference in units	2.00	−5.00	x	0.11	−0.04	−10.81	−6.11	−8.69
4	difference in %	3.92	−6.62	x	91.67	−8.16	−24.69	x	x
Percentage of Farms Fulfilling Environmental Sustainability Criteria (% of Farms in Total)
No.	Specification *	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	2007	63.39	27.65	34.15	55.32	98.63	8.52	9.66	3.73
2	2016	61.08	29.92	19.75	71.76	97.76	5.46	7.14	2.45
3	difference in units	−2.30	2.26	−14.40	16.44	−0.86	−3.06	−2.52	−1.28

* Sustainability criteria. 1. Index of winter vegetation cover on arable land (% of arable land). 2. Share of cereals in crop structure (% of arable land). 3. Number of crop groups cultivated on arable land. 4. Balance of soil organic matter on arable land (t/ha of arable land). 5. Stocking density on agricultural land (LU/ha). 6. Gross balance of nitrogen (N, kg/ha agricultural land). 7. Phosphorus (P; kg/ha of agricultural land). 8. potassium (K; kg/ha of agricultural land). Source—own calculation based on data 2005 and 2016 of Statistics Poland and [16].

). The average values of selected indicators for the sector inform about the progress in the scope of soil protection, e.g., winter vegetation cover, crop diversity correlated with decrease of cereals’ fraction, the balance of soil organic matter and N balance appropriate for the environment. The problematic issue is decreasing livestock density and very low values of P and K balances (especially negative values in 2016), that indicate the soil depletion in accumulated macroelements. The main reason for such results is natural fertilization decrease.

The other question is farms’ structure according to the fulfilment the recommended levels of analysed indicators. Farms were analysed in terms of the degree to which they achieved the threshold values of the indicators adopted in the study. The percentage of farms reaching threshold values provides information on the degree of sustainability, and analysis of the individual components also provides information on which of the individual elements of sustainability were easier or more difficult to achieve. The largest number of farms among the surveyed reached threshold values for the criterion of stocking density, which is also related to the economic calculation of the effectiveness of this direction of production. More organisational efforts were required in the case of achieving threshold values of soil organic matter balance indicators and winter vegetation cover. The positive observation is that more farms is characterised by crop diversity and above zero soil organic matter balance. On the other hand, in the analysed period was observed decreasing population of farms with proper winter vegetation cover and optimal NPK balances, that are still the challenge for the farms.

The evaluation of fertilizer balance, covering the main macronutrients, is a more complex issue. The balance of individual components may be understated, optimal or overstated in comparison to the recommended level. It is dictated by both the local circumstances, including soil contents in macronutrients, then quantity of supplied ingredients to soil in the form of various fertilizers (natural, organic and mineral), as well as the amount of components consumed by cultivated crops. The most difficult issue is to ensure optimum (recommended) balance, to not create excessive component surplus (which may be a hazard to natural environment), and the result may not be very low (which can lead to macronutrient depletion from soil, that requires restoration during the coming years). As research has indicated, less than 6% of farms in 2016 had the optimal N balance, and in the case of P, 7% were. The most alarming situation applied to K balance, because only 3% of farms in 2016 balanced this component.

The presented results indicate heterogeneous changes in farm environmental sustainability. The last years have indicated both improvement (mainly in the case of soil organic matter) and deterioration (as regards macronutrient balancing and crop plant diversity) in farm environmental sustainability. In reference to the last point, the diversity of crops increased on the farm level, but mostly within one plant group, especially those that improve the state of the soil.

3.3. High-Nature-Value Farmland (HNVf)

The European Environment Agency estimates that in Europe the share of HNVf areas in total UR is 41.2%. Within the EU, the highest estimated share of HNVf areas is found in Croatia and Austria at 89.9% and 64% respectively. On the other hand, their lowest share occurs in Denmark and Malta at 5.6% and 6.6% respectively [41]. It should be stressed that in the EU Member States HNVf areas are not infrequently divided according to the degree of their natural value. A good example of this is Germany, where research on HNVf areas has been carried out continuously since 2009 and the data are now available for 2017. In Germany, annual updates of HNVf areas are undertaken depending on their degree of natural valuation. Indeed, these areas are divided into three zones of (1) extremely high natural valuation, (2) very high natural valuation and (3) moderate natural valuation [45,46]. A slightly more elaborate division of HNVf areas is found in Italy, where they are divided into four zones: (1) low, (2) medium, (3) high and (4) very high natural valuation [26,47]. In Ireland, on the other hand, as many as six zones of HNVf areas have now been identified, due to regional variation in the size and structure of farmland and the presence of different forms of natural environment components [18,48]. It should be added that in Poland the methodological approach to the designation of HNVf areas is close to the approach used in Germany. This is because it was also decided to divide HNVf areas into three zones depending on the degree of their natural valuation.

HNVf areas in Poland were delimited in accordance with EU guidelines (2017) contained in the document entitled Working Document. Practices to Identify, Monitor and Assess HNF Farming in RDPs 2014–2020, which stem from the concept of their delimitation developed in Europe since the early 1990s [14,39,49,50]. According to these EU guidelines, the dominant feature of HNVf agriculture is, among others, low-intensity farming and the presence of seminatural vegetation, in particular extensive grassland. A characteristic feature is also the diversity of land cover, including the presence of, inter alia, watercourses and water reservoirs, wetlands, uncultivated land, as well as hedgerows and forests, which are peculiar ecological corridors for wild animals and, therefore, are also of key importance for their designation. It should be stressed that in Poland, while delimiting these areas, national natural and economic conditions occurring in rural areas were also taken into account (Figure 2).

In the framework of delimitation of HNVf areas in Poland, in the first step, the environmental components indicated in Figure 1 were assigned weights ranging from 3 to 10 points corresponding to their importance in maintaining biodiversity in rural areas. Next, areas of the country were delimited at the level of communes with extensive farming. Based on the European Commission’s 2017 guidelines, it was assumed that in the methodology adopted, extensive agriculture specific to HNVf areas is characterised by appropriate values of farm production indicators, exceeding the adopted threshold values for the share of cereals in the sown area, the stocking rate of animals fed with roughage or the share of permanent grassland in the farmland structure [28].

Three zones of HNVf areas were delimited in Poland depending on the value of environmental components located in the vicinity of extensive agricultural lands. The analysis covered the zones of HNVf areas with the weight of environmental components within 3.0–10.0, 3.5–10.0 and 4.0–10.0 points, hereinafter referred to as HNVf areas of moderate, high and exceptionally high natural valuation (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5) [22].

Poland currently has a significant potential of areas with high natural value. It is indicated by the present condition of e.g., HNVf areas in the country. Depending on the value level of environmental components located in the neighbourhood of areas with extensive agriculture, it should be indicated that their area currently ranges from 1.9 to 4.1 million ha of UAA, which constitutes from 12.5% to 27.1% of the country’s UAA (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5).

Taking the above into account, it becomes therefore important to determine the characteristics of areas (communes) and farms operating in them, taking into account the share and degree of natural value of occurring HNVf areas. For this purpose, on the basis of unpublished data from the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture (ARiMR), which records and manages the database of national farms covered by the CAP 2014–2020, selected characteristics of municipalities with a share of HNVf areas of up to 25% and more than 75% of their total UAA and in three separate zones due to the degree of their natural valuation were determined (

Table 6. Characteristics of biomass and farm potential in communes of different degree of valuation of HNVf areas in Poland.

	Municipalities with HNVf Areas
	of Moderate Natural Value and Their Contribution:		of High Natural Value and Their Participation:		of Exceptionally High Natural Value and Their Contribution:
	Up to 25%	Above 75%	Up to 25%	Above 75%	Up to 25%	Above 75%
Average farm area	11.9	9.5	11.4	12.1	11.2	12.3
Share of permanent grassland in UAA (%)	19.3	33.9	20.6	37.3	21.5	34.8
Share of forests in total area (%)	24.6	42.2	26.8	50.7	27.5	52.3
Share of waters in the total area (%)	2.0	2.9	2.0	4.6	2.1	4.9
Stocking density per 1 ha UAA	0.49	0.45	0.49	0.37	0.5	0.34

Source—own elaboration based on data from ARMA for 2017 and 2019 and data from the Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation-PIB in Puławy [22].

).

In Poland, there are differences in the average UAA of farms depending on the share and value of HNVf areas at the level of communes (Table 1). In communes with a high share of HNVf areas (above 75% in total UAA), the average UAA of agricultural holdings increased with an increase in their natural valuation. A different direction of change was observed in communes with a smaller share of HNVf areas (up to 25% of total UAA). It is worth noting that in communes with a large share of HNVf areas and with high or particularly high natural value, the average UAA of farms was larger than in the reference communes.

Important elements differentiating the analysed groups of communes are also their natural management conditions expressed by the presence and share of valuable natural environment components, including permanent grasslands, forests and waters. As might be expected, in communes with a high share of HNVf areas compared to the reference communes, there was a much larger share of permanent grassland in total UAA and of forests and waters in total area. It should be noted that in communes with a smaller share of HNVf areas, the share of all three indicated components of the natural environment increased along with the increase of their natural value, but the dynamics of the increase was not significant.

Communes with a high share of HNVf areas in comparison with other communes and regardless of their natural valuation had lower stocking density per 1 ha UAA, which indicates less intensive organization of agricultural production. It is also worth mentioning that in those communes, as the degree of HNVf area valuation increased, the stocking rate decreased. While in the reference communes, irrespective of the HNVf areas’ valuation, the density was almost the same. It should be underlined that the requirement for low intensity farming is one of the basic criteria characterising the HNVf areas in the EU.

4. Conclusions

The paper presents a proposal for evaluation of agriculture production potential, as well as environmental sustainability of farms in Poland using public data.

Poland’s agriculture has high production potential taking into account the main factors (labour inputs, agricultural land, farms’ number), but factor unit productivity and efficiency is below the EU average, which is the premise to undertake measures to achieve sectoral outcome improvement.

Between 2005–2016 significant changes were observed in individual agriculture, which concerned land concentration and agricultural production simplification. At the same time, it was confirmed that the increase in the share of farms with a plant-based production profile favourably influences the overall sustainability of the agricultural sector, which is related to the opportunities offered by various agricultural practices available to farms of this type (such as crop rotation or fertiliser management). An increase in the economic efficiency of all farms was observed, which was linked to structural changes (concentration) and thus an improvement in land productivity and labour profitability. Decisions taken at farm level to cease livestock production should be considered an important issue from both environmental and economic perspectives. The conditions of sustainable development, assuming diversification of production, naturally point to mixed production, plant and animal, as the optimum organisation of a holding, however, in agricultural practice such diversification of production is less and less frequent. This is related to the structure of subsidies promoting specific production practices and, also in this way, more sustainable approaches can be supported in public policy. The study confirms the positive changes in farms’ sustainability between 2007 and 2016. This phenomenon should be associated with changes in the structure of agricultural activity in holdings, by increasing the area of cultivation, which gave the opportunity to apply the most favourable practices and types of cultivation from the point of view of soil quality and the overall sustainability of the sector (mainly by including shifts and growing leguminous and papilionaceous plants). On the other hand, there has been a deterioration in the balancing of microelements. The presented farms’ state is definitely not sufficient, thus additional governmental incentives are desirable to move forward environmental sustainability, especially such focusing on getting the distance of regions with a lower sustainability.

The potential of the farms and their sustainability also depends on the characteristics of the land on which they are located. The dominant features of agriculture within the HNVf include low-intensity farming and the presence of seminatural vegetation, in particular extensive grassland.

The farming conditions of the farms should take into account the share and degree of natural value of the occurring HNVf areas of the areas (municipalities) in which they are located. The study found that in municipalities with a high share of HNVf areas and with a high or particularly high natural value of these areas, the average UAA of farms was larger than in the reference municipalities.

The share of HNVf areas in the structure of the commune’s area fundamentally influences farming conditions and thus such communes have more extensive farms, e.g., with lower livestock density (per hectare) compared to communes with a lower share of environmentally valuable areas. Moreover, in these municipalities, as their natural value increased, the share of forests and waters in the total area increased and the share of permanent grassland in the total area slightly decreased.

It should be stressed that it is possible to achieve environmental and economic objectives at farm level, but an apparent interdependence between the two should be pointed out. It is unjustified to equate environmentally sound production with semisubsistence and low-income production. On the one hand, ecosystem-friendly agricultural production is highly profitable, while on the other it poses the greatest risks. High levels of labour profitability are possible both through the implementation of pro-environmental practices and those generating threats to the ecosystem. Therefore, it is necessary to provide public support as a policy annuity for units producing at a very low level of environmental sustainability. Development and implementation of appropriate financial instruments to support those entities which decide to reduce the scale of negative impact on the natural environment would be a form of compensation for lost economic benefits, an incentive to introduce changes in the quality of agricultural production, and a way to secure public environmental goods.

The proposed approach to studying the level of sustainability includes an analysis of both the potential of the farms themselves and in the context of the natural value of the land on which they are located. This study provides the possibility to apply the sustainability criterion of farms also in the context of the characteristics of the land on which they are located, which allows better planning of measures and policy instruments in this field. It is used in statistics for agricultural policy programming at European Union level.